Re: VB.NET 2008 not backward compatable?

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

On 2009-04-22, mayayana <mayaXXyana@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's a bit of XAML (the markup langauge used by WPF) with a couple of
restyled radio buttons :) I know you can't see it - but, you have images
with drop shadows, radio buttons that look like nice flat boxes and
interior highlighting when "checked". They look good in the application
they are in..


That sounds just adorable. :) And I suppose
the images on the radio buttons can be 3-D rotating
bunnies? Isn't progress amazing?


If you so desire - then yes.

Do you really think it's a good salespitch
for .Net that you can create frivolous controls by

I don't consider them frivolous controls. They are part of a page setup
dialog. If you want an indication of what they look like and how they behave,
open Office 2003, and look at the Orientation section on the page setup
dialog.

writing bloated XML, without being limited to such
outdated tools as "WinAPI" and "custom drawing"?


LOL... bloated XML. See, again you show your ignorance. The XML is compiled
into a binary form called BAML. What you see there is only the design time
representation.

And again, it would take you a lot more time/code to reproduce this in VB6.
Time is money.

(Frankly I have an aesthetic issue with XML. It's
ugly and excessively verbose. But that's another
issue.)


And, that has what to do with the usefulness of xaml.

Perhaps there's a basic philosophical difference
here. Your talk reminds me of the ads in the old
VBPJ for VB controls from Sheridan and the like. One
could buy a whole, working GUI that looked very slick.

One of the genius ideas of VB was that it allowed for extensions by 3rd
parties. It gave birth to a large and thriving 3rd party control market. You
can't really fault that can you?

Besides which, in the real world - give app a and app b of equivalent
features/price which do you think is going to be more popular? The bland
battleship grey windows95 reject - or the one with the "slick" UI?

UI appearance is not something to be taken lightly in a commercial
application.

That probably made sense for someone who needed
to churn out a database front-end quickly, on a
regular basis. And I expect that's where VB.Net is mainly
being used. If it were me I'd be working on how I

LOL... What do you think the main use of VB.CLASSIC was?

might eliminate that extra dependency and have a lean
program with no dependencies. Different emphasis.

Then again, I guess that with .Net you don't really have
an option there. You may as well
use the whole 88-200+ MB mess of dependencies because
you're going to have to have them either way. In that

Actually, no. Since 3.5 sp1 you have the option of using the client optimized
runtime - and that is less the 20MB all together :)

Your facination with the disk size of the framework is quite amusing actually.

context I guess it would seem perfectly reasonable to
throw a few rotating, 3-D bunnies into the mix. Or maybe
a "close program" button that encapsulates a little video
of a man going over Niagara Falls in a barrel? Indeed, the
possibilities are endless with the miracle of bloat. :)

LOL... If you think for one second that I'm advocating anything of the sort,
then you are sorely mistaken.

--
Tom Shelton
.

Quantcast